Libertarian stance on genetic engineering?

[Al B. Sure!]

What is the libertarian stance on genetic engineering, specifically pre-natal engineering?

Libertarian pro-choice idealogy is based on the belief that fetuses are no alive and not worthy of rights... but a fetus that WILL be alive should have the right to control its own genetic code and not be altered right?


thanks

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its not the government's role to restrict genetic engineering.

The pro-choice ideology of LIBERTARIANS is not that the fetus is not alive and not worthy of rights (though some may feel that way), it is that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her own body and the government has no right to tell her no.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

But what about the child's right to have his own genetic code intact? What if a parent gave their child blue eyes and that child grew up and didn't want them...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then tough. The parent owns the child while he is in the womb (think of it as the rent ) and has the right to determine what genetic features he should have. The government should but out.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

Are you serious? The libertarian party truly believes that parents have the right to give their child three arms if they wanted to, despite the fact that the child, when born, may not want such genetic changes?!

That's not what I call freedom, Imran...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't know what the Libertarian party believes... look at their website.

That's what I believe though, as somewhat libertarian. Childs belong to parents and in exchange parents MUST provide for them until the age of 18. That's the way it works.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

But do you understand my confusion or whatever over this? The libertarians believe in no government intervention and people having maximum freedoms UNTIL a freedom harms others...

it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus) but one can assume that the fetus is not a life and will not be a life so its right to life is irrelevent.

BUT, a genetically engineered fetus that IS going to be a life should have the right to its own genetic material. Parents essentially own children but only to an extent... children still have certain rights... they can not be starved or severally beaten, etc. (I'm assuming the libertarian party favours legal action in such cases, right?)... altering one's genetic code against their will seems to be such an issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus) but one can assume that the fetus is not a life and will not be a life so its right to life is irrelevent.

That would not explain why the candidate for the Libertarian party for President, Harry Browne was personally pro-life, but backed pro-choice for the party.

[Wraith]

--"What is the libertarian stance on genetic engineering, specifically pre-natal engineering?"

Imram started off by oversimplifying things.

Personally, I'm A-OK with it.

As far as I know, there isn't an official party stance yet, for reasons I'll outline below.

--"it seems to me abortion is a freedom that harms the freedom of life of another (the fetus)"

There's a division in the party over this issue. There are pro-lifers who insist that life begins at conception. Everyone in the party agrees that life has started by birth. It's where the line is drawn that gets touchy, and where that line is placed by the individual member is going to decide where on the pro-life/pro-choice scale they are.
The same arguments apply to the genetic engineering thing.

Also, keep in mind that no one has ever been able to have any say in the matter of their genes. This isn't being changed.

Wraith
Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't teach eight cats to pull a sled.

[Berzerker]

But what about the child's right to have his own genetic code intact?

You used a parent giving their child 3 arms as justification for preserving the fetus' right to the genes given it by the parents. What if the parents were told they have a genetic anomally increasing the chances their baby will be born with a genetic disease? Would you say that child has a right to an intact set of genes and the parents cannot seek genetic manipulation to prevent the baby from getting the genetic disease? I'd say we don't have to worry about a parent wanting a child with 3 arms, but I'm sure there are plenty of parents who would want genetic changes to prevent a baby born with 3 arms.

As for your premise, that the fetus is entitled to the genes provided by the parents, that depends on when a person believes life and rights begin, but not even the most ardent pro-lifer would argue that a fetus with a genetic deformity must be born with that deformity even if technology could prevent it.

[Lord_Davinator]

when we talk about genetic manipulation I would think it would be more in terms of disease prevention and to a lesser degree giving hte child better looks, IQ, etc... but I seriously don't think giving the child three arms would be what people have in mind.

This is a problem that arises when you do grant such freedom... how much are you willing to give? The problematic gray area...

[Al B. Sure!]

Wraith:

I fully understand the pro-choice libertarian position on abortion... it is assumed that the fetus does not have greater rights at stake as it will not live...

My whole question is this... A genetically engineered fetus, however, is meant to survive... it will grow into a human being whose genetic code has been altered against his will. This human being has a right to have his original genetic code unaltered if he so wishes, right? It seems that a parent, by genetically engineering their child, is destroying this right...

Also, keep in mind that no one has ever been able to have any say in the matter of their genes. This isn't being changed.

Yeah but right now, one's intelligence, etc. is God-given or determined naturally through natural genetics... a person can't complain about having some trait because that's just how it is... with genetic engineering, an unwanted trait would exist due to human intervention, not God's special plan or fate, for example

Berzerker:

it can be assumed that a gross deformity would want to be removed by an individual. a person, however, could very well not want to be born with blue eyes, better eye-sight, and other mundane things... and they will have no say over how their genetic code was altered.


thanks

[Graag]

It's a good point.
What happens when parents want their children to have certain qualities, and they start mucking about with genes to prevent homosexuality, eye/hair/skin colour, height, low intelligence etc.

[Ned]

I am a libertarian! I am the God of my own universe. Only I have rights in that universe. I recognize no laws that restrict my freedoms as a God within my own universe.

A fetus that I create is in my universe. As the God of my universe, I can choose to let the fetus live, let the fetus die, or change it to be what I want it to be using genetic engineering. I am God. I am a libertarian.

[David Floyd]

with genetic engineering, an unwanted trait would exist due to human intervention, not God's special plan or fate, for example

How is one necessarily better or worse than the other? All are outside your control.

If someone would be born blind, or some bad physical deformity, one could say that was God's will, or fate, or one could fix it (assuming the technology was available). Which do you think would be better for the person in question, once he or she was born? And which do you think they'd prefer?